Thoughts on Dickie V's suggestion during last nights game
- Thread starter ISU_Clone_28
- Start date
The right way is the right way. Just wait until Maryland and Rutgers come in to the league teh B1g is going to light the CBB world on fire.
Interesting.
Well, the speed of the game picked up. Moving the shot clock to 30 will speed it up more and favor the teams that like to play fast and push the ball, like ISU.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any statistics on that? I was too young in 1993 to know anything about the switchover, but I have a hard time believing that lowering from 45 to 35 affected the game much.
One of the concerns that I had about moving to 6 fouls would be if that meant that the refs would just call even more fouls. I'm not a fan of fouls being called when it seems like they are calling a foul before the foul even actually happens.
That's not true either, the number of possessions per game have decreased almost yearly as well, the average tempo of games last year is way, way down from what it was in the late 80's/early 90's when they had a 45 second shot clock.
Even if true, wouldn't most college basketball historians say that all coincides with the time period in which the way fouls were being called changed and overly physical defense started taking over the game? There are all sorts of factors you have to consider.
It's probably true but I think it's a correlation not causation.
The cause of the scoring being down is the fact that the officials allowed the rough play. Same thing happened in the NBA. They started calling handchecks in the NBA and scoring went up.
College basketball isn't going to look pretty the next few months but the game will be better off longterm.
Right, in no way am I saying that shortening the shot clock leads to lower scoring games. There are lots of other factors at play, I'm just saying that just because you go to a shorter shot clock doesn't mean you are automatically going to see high scoring games, as the last two decades have proven. Cleaning up the overly physical defense is a great way to increase scoring.
Changing to allow 6 fouls doesn't necessarily mean they will call more fouls, it just changes who gets called for the fouls. And the number of fouls will start going down eventually, it's just going to take time for people to get more used to it. We've already adapted pretty well from what I see.
As far as the pace going down each year and points going down, a lot of that comes back to the players we have playing in cbb right now. Back 20 years ago most players spent at least 3-4 year in college. The level of talent is down from what it used to be because everybody goes to the NBA after 1 or 2 years even if they aren't ready. Less talent means less points.
As far as the pace going down each year and points going down, a lot of that comes back to the players we have playing in cbb right now. Back 20 years ago most players spent at least 3-4 year in college. The level of talent is down from what it used to be because everybody goes to the NBA after 1 or 2 years even if they aren't ready. Less talent means less points.
You're also comparing to a time when great players stayed for 4 years. Its not as black and white as you're trying to make it seem.
I don't see it. I think it is just trying to counter the new rules to a degree. The players eventually will adjust to the rules, or the refs won't really enforce them, or they will end up somewhere in between. In the end, I don't think it is going to have that big of an effect on scoring.
The NBA gets 6 fouls for 48 minutes, and rarely does anyone foul out. In fact, there might only be 1 or 2 players per game with 5 fouls. So, NBA gets 6 for 48 or 1 per 8 minutes. NCAA gets 5 for 40 or 1 per 8 minutes. Seems to me the NCAA is already like the NBA.
The NBA gets 6 fouls for 48 minutes, and rarely does anyone foul out. In fact, there might only be 1 or 2 players per game with 5 fouls. So, NBA gets 6 for 48 or 1 per 8 minutes. NCAA gets 5 for 40 or 1 per 8 minutes. Seems to me the NCAA is already like the NBA.
All I ask for is equivalency and consistency, not just on a team vs team basis, but on a conference vs conference basis. The ref union needs to get together and decide what exactly constitutes a certain type of foul. One ref will allow jersey hanging while another will blow the whistle if the hem on a player's shorts brushes a player on the other team as he runs past...it takes the first ten fouls to figure out what they can & cannot do in a given game or with a specific ref.
Oh - and have refs that are in good enough shape to keep up with the faster teams!
Oh - and have refs that are in good enough shape to keep up with the faster teams!
Big East experimented with 6-foul way back in mid-80s, I think. Not sure why it didn't stick, but it didn't. Obviously tiny sample size, conclude what you will.
There is a uniform system in place and it's a color coded system. If the player is wearing a red jersey, it's a foul. Blue jersey = no foul
Not going to happen. 1st it sends out a green light that physical play is OK. 2nd it contradicts the new rule changes that address cracking down on hand-checking
and more rigidly defining the block-charge call and how a player can defend in the post.
The most alarming comment Dicky V made last night that made the hair stand up on my arms was at the end of the game and he got pumped up about coming to Iowa State on Sunday.
:shocked:
and more rigidly defining the block-charge call and how a player can defend in the post.
The most alarming comment Dicky V made last night that made the hair stand up on my arms was at the end of the game and he got pumped up about coming to Iowa State on Sunday.
:shocked:
